Distinguishing Science From Pseudoscience Paper Example

Introduction

Pseudoscience in simple terms is fake or false science. In distinguishing real Science from pseudoscience, one has to know the real science. That involves a deep understanding of scientific facts as much as the nature of science that involves; testing of hypotheses, conducting meaningful experiments and establishment of theories, (Coker, 2001). The distinction between science and pseudoscience is very important especially in the psychology field which has no set of universally accepted principles, unlike Chemistry and Physics. With the use of modern technology, people tend to fall for pseudoscience since they are always comforting myths and motivated reasoning perpetrated by a section of qualified scientists and think tanks.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Evidence to show that Dr. Schlobotnik's miracle memory drug is based on pseudoscience

Dr. Schlobotnik claims that his drug, Miracle Memory Drug helps to improve memory. To determine whether this is real or just pseudoscience, we have to establish whether his claims meet the qualifications of a well-tested theory (Shermer, 2013). A theory must be supported by tangible evidence and must be tested and produce similar results. In Dr. Schlobotnik's website, different users, although having used the same prescriptions, have different results, which is contrary to what a theory should be. In his defence, Dr. Schlobotnik instead comes up with reasons why it can't work on some of its users.

Dr. Schlobotnik's claims are not based on any ancient knowledge or any scientific evidence but are rather based on claims that the drug has worked on some of its users as illustrated on his website. Some of the testimonials claim that after using the drug their study skills have increased and their forgetfulness decreased dramatically.

The use of a website to announce his claims further disregard this as real science but pseudoscience. Real science should be announced by unbiased scientific journals and not through personal websites. Another evidence of the Miracle Memory Drug being a result of pseudoscience is the fact that it is too good to be true. In his website, he claims that after using the drug, it's like it jumpstarts your brain. This creates a lot of questions, suspicions and should be approached with a lot of skepticism, demanding results of such evidence.

Unlike science which starts from a point a void hypothesis and searches for evidence that supports it, Dr. Schlobotnik's claims start from a positive hypothesis and support it with motivated reasoning. The website does not at any point state any side effects of the drugs but rather how well it has achieved its intended purpose of memory retrieval. Another question should be how good the testimonials is? Are they biased or just intended to fool the larger majority into falling for this miracle drug?

Evidence that Dr. Schlobotnik's should provide to prove that his drug is based on science

Dr. Schlobotnik's should produce scientific experiments of the Miracle Memory Drugs that are reproducible by other scientists. He should not only give us testimonials by some of its users that may be biased but rather produce medical evidence that these people have had proper medical check-ups and that the drug has worked as claimed. For something to be scientific, the claimant must be able to produce evidence of the same. In science, the burden of proof relies on the claimant, while in pseudoscience, it shifts to the critic (Coker, 2001). In this case, Dr. Schlobotnik's should produce hard evidence of his Miracle Memory Drug.

For his claim to be scientific, it must be possible to conceive evidence that could prove it wrong. Falsifiability is the major distinction between science and pseudoscience, (Popper, 2014). Dr. Schlobotnik's refutes that his drug does not work on some of the users and goes ahead to give ad hypotheses such as the drug may not work depending on where you are located on the globe. A claim that cannot be shown to be false cannot be scientific. In his website, Dr. Schlobotnik's gives much emphasis on confirmation, that it has worked on some users rather than refutation that it has not worked on some of its users. This portrays absence of self- correction which is always one of the characteristics of real science, that with evidence some of the bad theories are always dropped by good ones.

Time is essential in proving something is scientific, Dr. Schlobotnik's should demonstrate that he has spent a considerable amount of time cross checking the validity of his drug, its effect on different users and comparing it with the results of earlier drugs. With science, results are everything.Dr. Schlobotnik's should show evidence that his work has gone through a thorough peer- review process for the quality of his research, (Louw & Grimmer, 2016). Peer review enables scrutiny by experts. Proof of connectivity is also a major factor to consider. Connectivity is simply the extent to which a claim connects with other findings. (Evans & Stannovich, 2013). Pseudoscience always lacks connectivity and pseudoscientists tend to come up with ideas out of the blues that lack any support from other claims or findings.

Experiment to test the drug's effectiveness

In ascertaining whether his drug is effective, Dr. Schlobotnik's should use a combination of useful experiments and statistics gathered from different cases, subjects or experiments. After well-organized research and experiment, his results should be verified by the regulatory bodies in place. These regulatory bodies state whether the drugs are safe to be consumed after their findings. These bodies include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, while in the United States it is the Food and Drug Administration. Some other factors that these regulatory bodies consider are economic factors, how expensive are the drugs to be administered (Coker, 2001). The question of whether a drug is effective or beneficial also comes up. Use of some drugs is affected by human emotions.

Dr. Schlobotnik's should set up an experiment to test the effectiveness of the Miracle Memory Drug before it can be used. To do this, he should take into consideration both the dependent variables and the independent variables. In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that is determined or varied by the scientist while the dependent variable is the response achieved out of the experiment. In this case, the independent variable should be the number of doses Dr. Schlobotnik's intends to prescribe to users. On the other hand, the dependent variable should be the effect or the symptoms of such drugs on the users. Dr. Schlobotnik's should take into account such results, after several tests done from different groups. The groups could range from region to region, say for instance how the drug affects people from Africa, and how different it would affect people from the United States. Another group to consider is the effect it as on children and adults, as well as males and females.

After careful analysis and experiments gathered from the different groups, Dr. Schlobotnik's should send his results to the Food and Drug Administration as well as his fellow peers for strict scrutiny. This regulatory body will give way forward on the administration of such drugs.

What might account for people's vivid memory improvement?

Pseudoscience is produced by a team of qualified scientists and doctors which often make them a source of comforting myths supported by motivated reasoning and ideologies. They always use aspects of science but generally deny scientific methods. These strong beliefs can always overwhelm existing science. However, it is still shocking how people strongly believe in pseudoscience or things that can't be proofed, (Shermer, 2013). It could be possible that the people who believe they have vivid memory improvement could be feeling that out of fear, desperation, lack of knowledge or just because it's comforting for them. They act of despair leading to desperate measures such as turning to pseudoscience for comfort. Pseudoscience acts as a negative reinforcement to some patients, and it does away with what they deem to be a problem, cognitive dissonance to them, by just confirming their beliefs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, science is the only solution to our problems, and people should start believing in real science. People should be educated more on science since pseudoscience ruins both our health and our economy. There should be strict laws that limit the use and powers of science. People should also learn to be more skeptical of discomforting evidence, hypotheses and in general adopt a self-critical attitude.

References

Coker, R. (2001). Distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Retrieved December, 9(2002), 62-73.

Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), 223-241.

Louw, Q., & Grimmer, K. (2016). Peer review: Professionally important and an opportunity to contribute. Physiotherapy Research International, 21(2), 67-69.

Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge.

Shermer, M. (2013). Science and Pseudoscience. The Difference in Practice and the Difference It Makes. Philosophy of Pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem, 206.